tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.comments2014-02-27T08:03:40.643-08:00Humanists4ScienceEpiphenomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-87948421176031014552014-02-23T09:05:13.066-08:002014-02-23T09:05:13.066-08:00Preserve us from the loud-mouthed learned ignoranc...Preserve us from the loud-mouthed learned ignorance of the likes of Professor Atkins.<br />He clearly does not take seriously the things he says (&quot;life is meaningless&quot;, etc.). There is clearly nothing which inspires wonder in him, except perhaps his own feeling of omniscience.Alastair Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149522055231551719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-34885698315439881582013-11-19T20:39:19.124-08:002013-11-19T20:39:19.124-08:00“Two things are infinite: the universe and human s...“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and<a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow"> I’m not sure about the universe.”</a><br />― <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein</a><br /><br />“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”<br />― <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein</a><br /><br />“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”<br />― <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein</a><br /><br />“If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.”<br />― <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein</a><br /><br />“Logic will get you from A to Z; <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">imagination will get you everywhere.”</a><br />― <a href="http://www.tunersblog.com/" rel="nofollow">Albert Einstein</a>nakib hasanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12193454048223657617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-16794402869006835742013-10-29T07:15:18.146-07:002013-10-29T07:15:18.146-07:00thanks for this post David. I have downloaded the ...thanks for this post David. I have downloaded the sample of Norenzayan Kindle book and look forward to getting the time to study it. Has Tom at http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/ seen your post?<br /><br />The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality, Ara Norenzayan and Azim F. Shariff, Science 322, 58 (2008); DOI: 10.1126/science.1158757 <br />http://www.sciencemag.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/content/322/5898/58.full.pdf?sid=8383bf81-c119-4710-934e-182494441a15<br />is peer reviewed in ScienceChris Streethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310281888611427075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-68887535623775688222013-07-01T06:41:58.159-07:002013-07-01T06:41:58.159-07:00Professor Blakemore aknowledged his stark reductiv...Professor Blakemore aknowledged his stark reductivism, agreeing that &quot;electrical impulses in the brain&quot; are there but not &quot;I&quot; or &quot;you&quot;. But as if to sweeten this, he takes exception to Rabbi Sacks&#39; use of the word &quot;just&quot;, to re-iterate that in using this word Sacks makes of the belief that we are indeed completely causal machines and without free will &quot;trivial&quot;. But if Professor Blakemore also wants to point to - in case we should feel any despair - the beauty (he uses the word &quot;advisedly&quot;, he tells us) we can appreciate in the stupendous complexity and wondrousness that it is in fact the case that &quot;I&quot; and &quot;you&quot; are an illusion, surely it is this very capacity to appreciate beauty that is trivialised? The freedom of claiming that this, and not that, is beautiful is denied to me, because (according to Professor Blakemore&#39;s lights) I am not free. So there can be no beauty.Alastair Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149522055231551719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-52946336687546542482012-05-12T14:09:23.882-07:002012-05-12T14:09:23.882-07:00This is an excellent rebuttal of the idea that sci...This is an excellent rebuttal of the idea that science is (or should be) value free.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-23297192405261426452012-04-24T02:26:40.157-07:002012-04-24T02:26:40.157-07:00A discussion of values is also what the public dem...A discussion of values is also what the public demands of scientists - the Public Attitudes to Science 2011 study (which I worked on as a member of the Ipsos MORI research team) found that two-thirds (65%) of UK adults &quot;would like scientists to spend more time than they do discussing the social and ethical implications of their research with the general public&quot;.<br /><br />Yesterday, Taverne said this perhaps wasn&#39;t necessary (in response to Sir Roland Jackson) because scientists are already among the most trusted professions, so they don&#39;t need to start talking about their values to gain public trust. However, people may say they trust &quot;scientists&quot; as a broad group, but don&#39;t always trust the science (e.g. GM, nuclear power etc) or the institutions that scientists work for (which, as Taverne pointed out, overrides the trust in scientists themselves). One way scientists can overcome this, as public dialogues have shown, is to talk about their values, their enthusiasm for their work and the principles underpinning this - so talking more about these values is of utmost importance.Jayesh Navin Shahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13738625813433639078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-39665903878219410212012-02-10T10:45:56.093-08:002012-02-10T10:45:56.093-08:00Alex Rosenberg gives an accessible &#39;teaser&#39...Alex Rosenberg gives an accessible &#39;teaser&#39; of &#39;The Atheist&#39;s Guide To Reality&#39; in an interview here:<br /><br />http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209unattributedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05577361147758836918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-36955243167234578462011-12-28T03:34:41.756-08:002011-12-28T03:34:41.756-08:00Got the book for Xmas.Got the book for Xmas.Chris Streethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310281888611427075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-6072406393558892742011-11-22T15:49:43.025-08:002011-11-22T15:49:43.025-08:00Does Haught mean that Scientism takes on faith tha...Does Haught mean that Scientism takes on faith that there is nothing but naturalism - nothing is supernaturalistic? I&#39;d argue that there is no reliable evidence for supernaturalism. If this evidence becomes available then science might make theories based on supernaturalism. But this hasn&#39;t happened.crabsalloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05310281888611427075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-27282151201326593512011-11-09T01:05:23.080-08:002011-11-09T01:05:23.080-08:00Is there an agenda against Humanism running here -...Is there an agenda against Humanism running here - OR is he just being provaocative? I note that :-<br /><br />Julian Baggini will be speaking to<br />Oxford Atheists, Secularists and Humanistson &quot;What&#39;s so great about humanity&quot; on Wednesday 9th November at 18:00 in the Main Lecture Theatre, Brookes Gypsy Lane Campus Brookes Univ. Oxford<br /><br />Julian has done a lot of work on humanism already and will discuss questions like &#39;does humanism make humans too central?&#39; and &#39;what&#39;s the humanist view towards animals?&#39;<br /><br /> To celebrate his favourite philosopher coming to visit, Oxford A,S &amp; H has made cupcakes adorned with rude words. They will be on sale and all proceeds will go to Children in Need.<br /><br />But will this make Julian&#39;s ideas more paletable?David McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002292119598114109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-7534209123571391912011-11-07T11:21:46.144-08:002011-11-07T11:21:46.144-08:00Julian seems to have many misconceptions about sci...Julian seems to have many misconceptions about science -some of which are pointed out in the comments which follow the original article. <br /><br />How can science NOT be independent of everything when it is simply a tool? - the best there is for knowing. It is a series of processes repeatable in a cyclic fashion until a reasonably useful answer has been attained for a proposed hypothesis. Never a final answer and often a long drawn out one. He could do with doing some real science himself before he talks further on it.<br /><br />He does prefer the word atheist over several others as if that says anything about him other than one simple belief. <br /><br />No one and no thing should be able to tell us what we ought to do, let alone science. It is the main task of being a Human - working it out for ones&#39; self that is. It will always be possible to make better decisions of the moral sort. <br /><br />I have the feeling that Julian is here being as negative (and useless) as he was during his talk at the BHA AGM in April this year. Perhaps it is a sign of the frustration of philosophers in never being able to solve anything.David McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002292119598114109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-49229827437344537792011-08-30T12:38:31.502-07:002011-08-30T12:38:31.502-07:00I always get into trouble for sayign this and peop...I always get into trouble for sayign this and peopel routinely say I confuse definitns or whatever but few listen but, I will ay it anyway.<br /><br /><br />Sam Harris is wrong. Religion and Science are not Antithetical ways to view the world. The Draper-Wite Conflict Thesis has been discredited for Years.<br /><br />That said, Harris really doesn&#39;t want to create a world where Religion dies out, he simply wants to supplant all other Religions with his own, but becsuse he hates the word Relgiion and defines it as the opposite of Science, and has identified himself with Science, he doens&#39;t seem to realise thst his own perspective on the world, or his &quot;Wordview&quot; as its become popular to use, has no substantive differences in it to distinguish it from religion. Religion is not the same as beleif in a go and Religion si not unquestionign beleif in what Authorities told you years ago.<br /><br />A lot of reasonign goes into Religion. More than went into &quot;The Moral landscape&quot; in fact.<br /><br />Secular Humanism is itself a religion, not a Nonreligiosu Philosophy that serves as an alternative for Religion.<br /><br /><br /><br />Which brings up the other main problem with his Thesis. He is basing this on assumptions. He even admits this. How can a book based on assumptions perport to be absolute Truth?<br /><br />This is no the only objection of coruse but its still one thats really interestign as it seems thst &quot;Objective truth&quot; happens to agree with Sam Harrises own beleis. Not that he&#39;s Biased or anything...<br /><br /><br />I also doubt the legitimacy that &quot;Flourishing&quot; is the basis of Morality, and again, it really can&#39;t be quantified properly.zariylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01680835580601118497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-24374218354255332572011-08-22T11:21:43.570-07:002011-08-22T11:21:43.570-07:00One can only imagine in which direction the religi...One can only imagine in which direction the religious compass is currently pointing.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-12783554044191197902011-08-03T11:25:50.569-07:002011-08-03T11:25:50.569-07:00Are you sure you read the blog post?Are you sure you read the blog post?Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-32649223785490328932011-07-31T15:53:57.525-07:002011-07-31T15:53:57.525-07:00Hi Julian,
My apologies if I have the wrong perso...Hi Julian,<br /><br />My apologies if I have the wrong person, or if I have not explained myself very well. At what level do you not know what I am talking about?<br /><br />* have you heard of the discussion board humanists4science?<br />* are you the Julian who started a thread, on the above, on 21st June entitled Atheism and Self Deception?<br />* did you (if you are the same Julian?) see some responses that questioned your definition of the term belief?<br />* did you author the article (which I have read very carefully), to which these comments are attached, which liken a position reached through faith to one reached through a scientific perspective?<br /><br />If this is still not clear let me know which bit is not and I will be happy to expand.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790187839004306944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-78100836615128770982011-07-31T12:46:22.349-07:002011-07-31T12:46:22.349-07:00Hi Rupert
I have absolutely no idea what you are ...Hi Rupert<br /><br />I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />Have you read the blog post? Many people find it helpful to do so prior to commenting but it is not essential.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-44570513182017778362011-07-30T07:10:41.652-07:002011-07-30T07:10:41.652-07:00Julian,
There was a discussion on humanists4scien...Julian,<br /><br />There was a discussion on humanists4science initiated by yourself around 23rd June, where a number of people questioned your definition of &quot;belief&quot;. Do you not recall it?Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790187839004306944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-36737568025833546562011-07-28T02:48:22.740-07:002011-07-28T02:48:22.740-07:00Hi Rupert
I have absolutely no idea what you are ...Hi Rupert<br /><br />I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-12418675316991997202011-07-26T23:16:28.202-07:002011-07-26T23:16:28.202-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.The Natural Health Clinichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18048555334891309552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-4959091111933292722011-07-26T01:16:38.535-07:002011-07-26T01:16:38.535-07:00As a number of us pointed out weeks ago your argum...As a number of us pointed out weeks ago your argument is built on a false premise, that of the way the word &#39;belief&#39; is used.<br /><br />Do you think that the Faith method is equivalent to the Scientific method? As that seems to be the core of your argument.Ruperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790187839004306944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-67965120495692015702011-07-16T03:57:12.693-07:002011-07-16T03:57:12.693-07:00Hi
Good comment! I agree regarding evidence - fo...Hi <br /><br />Good comment! I agree regarding evidence - for sure, no one believes things on the basis of no evidence/reason. Like you say the evidence is not credible or reliable to us. Even people who believe that other people are controlling their thoughts, or that their spouse has been replaced by an impostor do so on the basis of evidence.<br /><br />&quot;What I don&#39;t understand is why you are suspicious of people that make no claims themselves on the existence of God, but reject the evidence that has been proffered&quot; Because when I talk to them they often DO make claims about the existence of God in the manner illustrated by Kirby.<br /><br />Regarding knowledge I said this<br /><br />This question is probably at the ROOT of what I am arguing against. This is because it can be raised to suggest that if we cannot know FOR CERTAIN that the world is a certain way then we SHOULD suspend belief on the matter..<br /><br />I was not aware that I conflated any distinction you mention regarding knoweldge. I did however take it as axiomatic that people have a multitude of beliefs on things that they do not know for certain i.e., things that they could be mistaken about.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-58676721985494109822011-07-16T02:53:29.663-07:002011-07-16T02:53:29.663-07:00Julian, I have a couple of issues with your last p...Julian, I have a couple of issues with your last post:<br /><br />1) &quot;For sure I am suspicious of atheists who tell me that they believe there is no evidence for the existence of God and that they simply suspend belief on the issue i.e., they neither believe that God exists nor disbelieve or deny that God exists. The more I know about them and what other beliefs they have the more suspicious I get.&quot;<br /><br />I, too, am suspicious of people that believe there is no evidence for the existence of God. I am a sceptic. It is hardly a compelling argument in and of itself. Just as someone that makes a positive claim that there is evidence for the existence of God, those that come to the positive conclusion that there is none must also present evidence for their claim.<br /><br />However, this is not an accurate reflection of the vast majority of atheists. It is, rather, that no credible evidence has been presented for the existence of God; a subtle, but important distinction.<br /><br />What I don&#39;t understand is why you are suspicious of people that make no claims themselves on the existence of God, but reject the evidence that has been proffered. Like Russel&#39;s fairy analogy, I do not believe in the existence of such entities because there has been no credible evidence for their existence, not because I believe there is no evidence.<br /><br />As for the suspension of belief as a general rule, why would anyone hold onto a belief for which no credible evidence has been put forward?<br /><br />2) Following on from the last paragraph here, I have a serious issue with your conflation of a position on belief of the existence of God(atheism/theism) and a position on knowledge of the existence of God (gnosticism/gnosticism).<br /><br />If your position on the knowledge of the existence of God is gnostic, then you will be able to present the same evidence that convinced you to know AND believe in the existence of God. The agnostic, on the other hand, lacks this knowledge, and must resort to their position on what they believe for their theistic position. One might have no knowledge of the existence of a God, but might very well believe all the same.<br /><br />Personally, I think the theistic agnostic position is a ridiculous space to occupy. For what does it mean to say you believe in something that you have no knowledge of, and what evidence do you have for your position of belief if no knowledge is presented?<br /><br />I have heard it said that people are agnostic first, and then atheistic second. I do not hold with this position though. If one is agnostic, and has no knowledge of the existence of God, then they have no foundation for believing in His existence. Conversely, someone IS an atheist because they have no knowledge of the existence of God.<br /><br />I cannot over emphasis the importance of realising there is a difference between a position on belief/faith, and a position on knowledge.mygodlesslifehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00612827413476816246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-89284780619721423732011-07-15T15:24:16.001-07:002011-07-15T15:24:16.001-07:00Hi Russell
Thanks for the elaboration.
I am stil...Hi Russell<br /><br />Thanks for the elaboration.<br /><br />I am still not sure what the emphasis on certainty is doing and how you perceive it affecting peoples belief formation process but you seem a pretty open minded guy.<br /><br />For sure I am suspicious of atheists who tell me that they believe there is no evidence for the existence of God and that they simply suspend belief on the issue i.e., they neither believe that God exists nor disbelieve or deny that God exists. The more I know about them and what other beliefs they have the more suspicious I get.<br /><br />One way to help understand where I am coming from is to consider the idea that beliefs are representations of the how the world may be and that this process occurs automatically i.e., when you walk around your garden you automatically represent it the way you perceive it as being. Conscious willing is not involved in belief formation nor in the suspension of belief.<br /> <br />The idea that we can simply suspend belief as if this was an act of will that we had control over is extremely controversial. In fact it is a religious idea that goes back to Descartes (and the only reason it is in his philosophy is to get God off the hook for our mistaken beliefs. Instead we get the blame). So it is kind of odd to find this idea so widespread amongst atheists.<br /><br />Anyhow back to your question:<br /><br />&quot;So what I&#39;m asking is: When you say that no one suspends belief on such things, do you mean to say that you can know FOR CERTAIN, beyond the possibility of being persuaded by evidence, that there is no such thing as a fairy?&quot;<br /><br />Nope. . <br /><br />This question is probably at the ROOT of what I am arguing against. This is because it can be raised to suggest that if we cannot know FOR CERTAIN that the world is a certain way then we SHOULD suspend belief on the matter.<br /><br />As far as I can tell this notion is not only psychologically impossible to do (even Descartes failed and he sat in a stove all day) there is no reason to think that this is what we OUGHT to be trying to do. What is more it is in direct conflict with what people think they OUGHT to believe in other contexts i.e., most sensible people think that we ought to believe that evolution by natural selection is the true explanation of human origins. However this is not CERTAIN.<br /><br />This idea that people have mistaken beliefs about the principles upon which they form beliefs is not at all controversial in psychology/philosophy<br /><br />I hope that elobration helps a bit. <br /><br />Cool show by the way. :-). We don&#39;t have anything like that in the UK.Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-76917199667017502992011-07-15T11:43:44.050-07:002011-07-15T11:43:44.050-07:00Hi Julian,
Sure, I&#39;ll spell it out for you. ...Hi Julian,<br /><br />Sure, I&#39;ll spell it out for you. When I say I&#39;m an atheist, what I mean is that I have no good reason to believe in God, since there is no evidential support for the claim. I do not mean that I have absolute certainty that no god exists, nor that my mind couldn&#39;t be changed given additional evidence.<br /><br />In at least of your essay, this viewpoint doesn&#39;t seem to satisfy you. You accuse atheists in general of being willfully self-deceived (although, apparently, not the hosts of &quot;The Atheist Experience&quot; in particular? I&#39;m not yet clear on this point). In particular you point to the comparison between God and &quot;unicorns and fairies&quot; as proof that the atheists whom you target really do positively and definitively deny the existence of God. As you said in your previous comment: &quot;no one suspends belief on the existence of fairies.&quot;<br /><br />So what I&#39;m asking is: When you say that no one suspends belief on such things, do you mean to say that you can know FOR CERTAIN, beyond the possibility of being persuaded by evidence, that there is no such thing as a fairy? Or that this confidence is, in fact, more justified than a similar belief about God would be?<br /><br />If you think there is a difference between beliefs on those two separate subjects, I&#39;d be interested to know where that difference lies, or what conclusion you hope that reasonable &quot;atheists&quot; ought to arrive at.Kazimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2736655900207355526.post-90832356985353709382011-07-15T10:07:26.802-07:002011-07-15T10:07:26.802-07:00Hey John, I think you need to climb down off that ...Hey John, I think you need to climb down off that horse and stop getting so personal. <br /><br />My view has always been as set out in the article above (which I have just tweaked to make it as clear as I can make it). The only person there that gets an explicit mention, is Kirby, but people who reason in the same way as her often get upset at what I say.<br /><br />Unfortunately I don&#39;t offer therapy <br /><br />----------<br /><br />Hello Russell and Tracie! <br /><br />I cannot tell whether you agree or disagree with my claims in the article. However, these two comments from both of you look kind of strange to me. From Tania:<br /><br />&quot;What you seem not to understand, however, is that I could be the “Brain in a Vat.” Therefore, I can never say, meaning 100 percent certainty, fairies don’t exist.&quot;<br /><br />I would be interested to know what you take the relevance of this comment to be?<br /><br />Also this one, by Russell:<br /><br />&quot;Wait a minute. Are you saying that you have absolute epistemological certainty that fairies do not exist?&quot;<br /><br />Maybe you can both elaborate a little on what you were thinking here?Julian Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05766191169973968594noreply@blogger.com